Some Thoughts on the Jefferson Trade
Ed. Note: I apologize for my recent absence. I began graduate school on Monday so, needless to say, my life has been a bit hectic the last few days. Once I get a better sense of my schedule, I’ll be back in full force. But I couldn’t let yesterday’s events pass without offering some comment.
As you know, yesterday the Spurs acquired Richard Jefferson for Bruce Bowen, Kurt Thomas and Fabricio Oberto. I agree with the general consensus: The Spurs have made a smart move and have firmly placed themselves back into the hunt for a 5th title. According to our friendly neighborhood Bucks blogger, this isn’t such a bad move for Milwaukee either. But there have been a few naysayers, and rightfully so. Few trades are all reward and no risk. That being said, I think some of the criticisms that have popped up are misguided and I want to take this opportunity to respond. I also want to raise a few concerns of my own:
Some questions have been raised regarding Richard Jefferson’s attitude. He has developed a reputation as a problem in the locker room, and in some people’s mind his acquisition has put the Spurs much-heralded chemistry at some amount of risk. Personally, I am not that concerned. Jefferson went from a devolving situation in New Jersey to a dead end situation in Milwaukee (Yes, the Bucks were in striking distance of the playoffs but, as Jeremy Schmidt himself admitted, A Jefferson-Redd led team was never going beyond the first round). Few players would survive such a transition without some negative press about their “attitude.”
In all honesty, I think there are plenty of reasons to be quite optimistic about the attitude and energy Jefferson will bring: Jefferson has his best, and what may be last, opportunity to win a ring this next season. And he didn’t have to sacrifice a dime to get it. I see no reason why we can’t expect 82 games of ear-to-ear grins from number 24.
You know the interesting thing about this speculation regarding Jefferson and his attitude? For one man it isn’t speculation: Gregg Popovich. Popovich served as an assistant coach on the 2003 FIBA U.S. Men’s National Team and on the 2004 Olympic Team, both of which Jefferson played on. Popovich hasn’t merely scouted Jefferson; he has coached him directly. No one in the organization is in a better position to judge Jefferson’s attitude than Coach Pop. And if Popovich is a believer than I am as well.
On a similar but slightly different note, take a look at the elite small forwards the Spurs have targeted in the last 12 months: Corey Maggette, Vince Carter, Richard Jefferson. Jefferson is easily the least established “head case” of the three.
Aaron Stampler of Pounding the Rock pointed out that Jefferson had a rather poor +/- this past season. In fact, with -104 he had the second worst +/- on the team. I think this is an excellent opportunity to point out the fundamental problem with the +/- metric: There are always 4 other guys in your same jersey with you on the court. And every time one of those guys allows a basket or fails to score, that affects your +/-. When you are Matt Bonner, and you start alongside Tim Duncan and Tony Parker, you could accidentally end up with the highest +/- on the team. When you are Richard Jefferson and you not only start alongside Charlie Bell and Dan Gadzuric but also primarily play against other team’s starting 5, you may end up with a terrible +/-. I’ll readily admit his PER this last season (15.45) was low considering his salary but I think his +/- is a misleading stat.
Before moving on to my criticisms, I want to propose an idea which I have yet to do the appropriate research for: One legitimate point of concern many commentators have noted is how dangerously close this move puts the Spurs to the luxury tax. If the Spurs are going to finish rounding out this roster (after yesterday’s events, the the frontcourt is certainly in need of a little depth), they will most likely have to head north of the cap. For many this has come as a surprise given how closely associated the Spurs are with the ethic of frugality. (Although, as R.C. Buford said during an interview yesterday afternoon, “this won’t be the first time we’ve been a luxury tax paying team.”)
I have a theory. This past season the Spurs experienced an uncommon financial shock. They received the revenue from only three home playoff games. By some estimates, a franchise can make close to $1 million per playoff home game. Although it would be an enormous gamble, the Spurs may be preparing to defy our expectations and absorb the luxury tax in the hopes that the excess revenue from a deep playoff run will offset the costs. I will do some research and try to find out how much the team made in ’07, ’08, and ’09. If there was a significant drop in the Spurs ’09 revenue, there may be some truth to this idea. (I’m hardly the first person to propose that this business strategy may work for an NBA team, but I have never seen hard numbers that prove its validity.)
At this point, my primary concern is our frontcourt depth. Matt Bonner is unacceptable as a starting center. With players like James Gist and Ian Mahinmi in the pipeline, we are in an excellent position to pad the end of the bench but, if we legitimately intend to compete this season, we need a frontcourt contributor we don’t currently possess. As Tim said to me late yesterday evening, “We have roster spots 1 through 6 and 9 through 12. We need 7 and 8.”
We also still need some depth at the small forward position (Who will backup Jefferson? Udoka?), but that can be more readily solved by the draft. If we do choose a small forward, Jefferson’s acquisition does take a fair amount of pressure off of that young man: Instead of praying that he will grow into a semi-legitimate starter by mid-season, he can contribute 10-15 minutes off of the bench and develop comfortably and calmly.
At the end of yesterday, there were some questions that still hung in the air. But all in all, this is a trade I am excited about. Had we allowed those contracts to expire and waited for the 2010 free agent class, we would have quietly suffered last season’s fate while Duncan and Ginobili grew a year older. Add on the fact that the 2010 FA market would be a free-for-all full of attractive buyers, giving us no assurances the Spurs would land the caliber of player we sought. We had an opportunity to compete now and we took it. Given the ages of Duncan and Manu, I’m glad we did.
